Friday, January 11, 2013

Misunderstanding of Iranian Opposition on Nonviolence

There are several important misunderstanding on nonviolence
and Nowruz Revolution in Iranian opposition which causes many to reject
nonviolence.

The first and most important is that many ask: “How can you
reject self-defense by the population beaten and killed by revolutionary guards
and Islamic Republic security?”

This misunderstanding that in nonviolence, self-defense is
rejected stems from the misunderstanding on the meaning of violence. Violence in different fields can have different
meanings. In nonviolence, violence is
referred to an action with intention to cause harm to another. Self-defense, if there is no intention to
harm, should not be considered an act of violence. As an example, the Free Syrian Army was
formed to defend nonviolent protesters.
Yet, when FSA harmed, tortured or even murdered captured soldiers of
Bashar Assad, it was commiting violence which was counter-productive to the
overall Syrian struggle for freedom. Assad’s regime, because of this violence of
FSA, is calling FSA fighters terrorists which has led to many otherwise
undecided citizens to take the side of the regime. Self-defense, if not intended to harm the
adversary should not be labeled violence.
Iranian opposition cannot reject self-defense, but violence is
counterproductive and must be rejected by Iranian opposition for a successful struggle
and transition from the Islamic Republic.

Overall, there are two pathways leading individuals to
nonviolence. The first are those referred to as principled or ethical
nonviolence advocates. This group’s belief in nonviolence is often because of
religious or moral reasons. Dalai Lama
and Gandhi are examples of this group. Then there are those often referred to
as advocates of strategic or pragmatic nonviolence who believe in nonviolence based
on political analysis. This group which I belong to believe in nonviolence
based on pragmatic and strategic reasons.
My belief is that the best way to defeat the Islamic Republic is through
widespread use of nonviolent methods (protests, strikes, disobedience and
occupying public places) and Iranian national celebrations are tools helping
Iranians organize for disobedience and unite for a common cause under the
philosophy of nonviolence. I reject the strategy of overcoming the Revolutionary
Guards and state security through killings, like in Syria, because of pragmatic
reasons and the danger of destroying Iran.

The second important point is that we need to realize
nonviolence is different from pacifism.
Both are against violence, but nonviolence is an active philosophy in
the path of eliminating violence from society while pacifism is a personal
belief and does not have a particular stand on societal change for the elimination of violence.
As an example, my grandmother is a pacifist, but she is not an activist
for a nonviolent revolution in Iran.
Pacifists are willing to even make peace with Hitler. In Iran today, pacifists are those who call for peace and coexistence with the Islamic
Republic. They are willing to accept
silence if the Islamic Republic eliminates obvious violence and accepts their
conditions (free elections, freeing of political prisoners etc.). They are willing to make peace even if
Islam/Shi’ism remains the official religion of Iran (which is a form of
discrimination against non-believers). While in nonviolence, because religious
discrimination is a form of violence and declaration of religion in the
constitution is considered a form of discrimination against nonbelievers, religious
republics can never be accepted as a goal
or means to an end.

I’ve repeatedly stated and will continue to state that reformists,
whether Islamists or secular old leftists who consider themselves reformists and
justify and advocate “Yes to Islamic Republic” are advocates of violence, even
if they reject murder and torture. Their
violence is accepting religious republic and advocating the continued institutionalization
of religion in the government, a stance which has religious and sexual
discrimination (and thus violence) inherent in it.